ArticlePeerJ2021
Continued nucleic acid tests for SARS-CoV-2 following discharge of patients with COVID-19 in Lu'an, China.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening the hub genes and analyzing the mechanisms in discharged COVID-19 patients retesting positive through bioinformatics analysis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022Article
- Longitudinal, virological, and serological assessment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Journal of neurovirology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown that discharged Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients have retested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during a follow-up RT-PCR test. We sought to assess the results of continued nucleic acid testing for SARS-CoV-2 patients in COVID-19 patients after they were discharged in Lu'an, China.
methodsWe conducted RT-PCR tests on sputum, throat swabs, fecal or anal swabs, and urine samples collected from 67 COVID-19 patients following discharge. Samples were collected on the 7th and 14th days following discharge. Patients testing positive on the 7th or 14th day were retested after 24 hours until they tested negative twice.
resultsSeventeen (17/67, 25.4%) discharged COVID-19 patients had a positive RT-PCR retest for SARS-CoV-2. Among them, 14 (82.4%) were sputum positive, five (29.4%) were throat swab positive, seven (41.2%) were fecal or anal swab positive, one (5.9%) was urine sample positive, five (29.4%) were both sputum and throat swab positive, four (23.5%) were both sputum and fecal test positive, and one (5.9%) was positive of all four specimens. The shortest period of time between discharge and the last positive test was 7 days, the longest was 48 days, and the median was 16 days. The proportion of positive fecal or anal swab tests increased from the third week. The median Cq cut-off values after onset were 26.7 after the first week, 37.7 the second to sixth week, and 40 after the sixth week. There were no significant differences between the RT-PCR retest positive group and the unrecovered positive group.
conclusionsThere was a high proportion of patients who retested positive for COVID-19. Discharge criteria have remained fairly consistent so we encourage regions affected by COVID-19 to appropriately amend their current criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.